Logical next step?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yep, and there are precedents cited for that reasoning. All federal law enforcement authority is derived from the president, I've probably said that a hundred times on the forum over the years. The president can establish priorities for the DOJ and if the AG disagrees or refuses to follow the president, the president has every right to fire his/her ass. This is nothing new.
Basically you're saying that Nixon did nothing wrong.
 
Just because you don't want to make an inference going by the actual language in the ruling doesn't mean you can't make on.

SCOTUS opinions don't work on a case to case basis. They work on establishing certain frameworks by which to judge those cases. This particular framework allows for a president to order the military to kill an opponent. Saying I need a specific circumstance spelled out to make that circumstance legal is simply dishonest.

That is how you have wrongly interpreted it

Your Cult told you to do that.
 
Covering up knowledge of someone else's illegal act isn't an official act.
It is when the cover up consists of the president ordering the CIA or DOJ to squash the investigation. These agencies are under exclusive control of the president and therefore those actions are given absolute immunity.
 
I support my claims to but there are certain posters who I will not give links to that OK Texas is one of them. He doesn't read links - ever. He never posts links ever. But he demands links to things that are public knowledge,


So the foreign commie bitch is lying her frozen ass off again. I post links where appropriate, the last one was Saturday, it sent Care4all heading for the hills.

.
 
It is when the cover up consists of the president ordering the CIA or DOJ to squash the investigation. These agencies are under exclusive control of the president and therefore those actions are given absolute immunity.

The root cause is an illegal act. Nixon wouldn't have gotten immunity then, nor would he under current rules.

And Impeachment was inevitable in the case of Nixon, because back then both sides wouldn't stand for it.

Meanwhile recently the Republicans got rid of one of their own for accused crimes, yet a Dem Senator still holds his seat while approaching trial.
 
The root cause is an illegal act. Nixon wouldn't have gotten immunity then, nor would he under current rules.
What do you mean the "root cause" is an illegal act? The alleged "crime" was part of his official duties and is granted absolute immunity. The brilliant conservative SCOTUS says that we are not at all allowed to consider his motivation for the act. The fact that this is within his authority is enough to prevent any prosecution.
And Impeachment was inevitable in the case of Nixon, because back then both sides wouldn't stand for it.
The Republican party of the past wouldn't stand for it. This current Republican party gives us reason to doubt.
 
What do you mean the "root cause" is an illegal act? The alleged "crime" was part of his official duties and is granted absolute immunity. The brilliant conservative SCOTUS says that we are not at all allowed to consider his motivation for the act. The fact that this is within his authority is enough to prevent any prosecution.

The Republican party of the past wouldn't stand for it. This current Republican party gives us reason to doubt.

If he reasonably thought the election was compromised he had a responsibility to figure it out.
 
I already stated. They gave themselves veto power over any policy of the executive they don’t like. The law doesn’t matter. They can just pretend the law doesnt mean what it says.


So you can't get specific. Run along child you're wasting my time.

.
 
If he reasonably thought the election was compromised he had a responsibility to figure it out.
Are you switching gears from Nixon to Trump now?

Trump wasn't interested in "figuring it out" when he told the DoJ to issue a statement calling the election corrupt despite the fact that they had not found any evidence of such corruption.
 
So you can get specific. Run along child you're wasting my time.

.
Sorry for attempting to educate you. I assumed when you asked a question you were interested in hearing an answer.
 
Are you switching gears from Nixon to Trump now?

Trump wasn't interested in "figuring it out" when he told the DoJ to issue a statement calling the election corrupt despite the fact that they had not found any evidence of such corruption.

because all crimes have evidence sitting on the table ready for people to use it, right?
 
because all crimes have evidence sitting on the table ready for people to use it, right?
Of course not. But how does that permit Trump to tell the DoJ to announce the conclusion of an investigation that hasn't occurred?
 
Of course not. But how does that permit Trump to tell the DoJ to announce the conclusion of an investigation that hasn't occurred?

He doesn't have to declare anything, he just has to try to figure out if it was a fraudulent election or not. Also there are time constraints involved.

You idiots could have just beat him, even with some "help" from loose absentee ballot rules from the pandemic, but you had to go with the lawfare.

Now the SC has put a stop to it, and many people see right through all this bullshit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom